Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:27:39 -0700 From: Jason Helfman <jgh@FreeBSD.org> To: Max Brazhnikov <makc@freebsd.org> Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r315222 - in head: devel/qdevelop games/warmux graphics/xaos math/qtiplot multimedia/minitube print/hplip textproc/qstardict Message-ID: <CAMuy=%2BgoS6wXRyBTw6qr_4oS3fp2y0-nAAOSgAmQA%2B_kfoOdcw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2621916.z1b9zmMaju@mercury.ph.man.ac.uk> References: <201303251359.r2PDxIXf035701@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgkipVS-gneKbOO-zFyUm=W3AeffBDGd2EegcUt8iXufDw@mail.gmail.com> <20130328030757.GB83712@FreeBSD.org> <2621916.z1b9zmMaju@mercury.ph.man.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Max Brazhnikov <makc@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:07:57 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:57:34PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote: > > > On 27 March 2013 22:53, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 01:59:18PM +0000, Max Brazhnikov wrote: > > > >> New Revision: 315222 > > > >> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/315222 > > > >> > > > >> - Remove OPTIONS_DEFINE, if it contains only global options > > > > > > > > Can you elaborate on this one? Given that there is no clear policy, > > > > personally I've been always including OPTIONS_DEFINE, even if just > for, > > > > say, DOCS. > > > > > > Options such as IPV6, DOCS, EXAMPLES, and NLS are generally set > > > globally (e.g., OPTIONS_UNSET= NLS) and not per port. As such, it can > > > reduce user annoyance if the dialog box is not shown for such options. > > and it keeps status quo with old options framework, when DOCS/EXAMPLES > were not > usually added to the options list, apparently because bsd.port.mk checked > only > for NOPORT* variables. > > > Yes, I've heard that reasoning. I'm not particularly against it, but I > > am also worried about certain inconsistency: it means, that for a port > > with at least one "local" option, users can toggle all of them, while for > > others they had to rely on their /etc/make.conf settings (or defaults). > > I agree with you about inconsistency. I'm fine with any policy once it's > settled. > > Max > > I'm fine with any policy, however it seems that there is inconsistency in what I've heard for defining, as well. Why not have a policy first, then implement/document? -jgh -- Jason Helfman | FreeBSD Committer jgh@FreeBSD.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~jgh | The Power to Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMuy=%2BgoS6wXRyBTw6qr_4oS3fp2y0-nAAOSgAmQA%2B_kfoOdcw>